> For example: an 65+ year-old patient comes in with a specific complaint. It could be cause A or the more rare but serious cause B. It takes imaging to determi

> For example: an 65+ year-old patient comes in with a specific complaint. It could be cause A or the more rare but serious cause B. It takes imaging to determine whether it's A or B. Elsewhere in the world, they just assume it's A as the patient is "old" because it's financially impractical to test for B. My wife on the other had has no constraints from ordering the imaging test even though 9/10 times it's not needed. But the other 10% of the time, it saves the life. This just plain isn't true in general. I grew up in the US with probably the best insurance of anyone I've ever known. I've also lived in Sweden with the state-run insurance (without any private addition). I've had great care in the US. I've had great care in Sweden. In fact, my care in Sweden has honestly probably been better in my cases including where I had overuse injury to my knee due to sports where they really could just say "well quit running so much and let your body rest and leave the healthcare system to those not actively inducing their own injury", but they did not. Fast MRIs, fast diagnosis, fast help, fast everything. I understand this is entirely anecdotal, but the fact is there are many much cheaper systems out there run by governments that actually function _better_ than the US system even for those in the US with good insurance.